Iterum Therapeutics Plc (ITRM)

$0.03 -0.04 (-57.39%)
Market Cap 1.60M
Revenue (ttm) 0.00
Net Income (ttm) -24.77M
EPS (ttm) N/A
PE Ratio 0.00
Forward PE N/A
Profit Margin 0.00%
Debt to Equity Ratio -2.88
Volume 65,735,500
Avg Vol 19,797,338
Day's Range N/A - N/A
Shares Out 53.29M
Stochastic %K 2%
Beta 2.96
Analysts Hold
Price Target $9.00

Company Profile

Iterum Therapeutics plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes treatments for drug resistant bacterial infections in Ireland, Bermuda, and the United States. The company offers ORLYNVAH, an oral penem antibiotic for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections caused by Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus mirabilis microorganisms in adult women with limited or no alternative oral antibacterial treatment options. It is also developing sulopenem, a novel...

Industry: Biotechnology
Sector: Healthcare
Phone: 353 1 903 8354
Address:
3 Dublin Landings, North Wall Quay, Dublin, Ireland
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 5 at 12:07 AM
$ITRM in other countries where Orly will be priced similar or slightly above generics, in the price isn’t that different, how much of ALL scripts Written will Orly capture in say, Japan? Big elderly population- so already a resistant population- will it only be 1% of TAM? Or much higher…😎
0 · Reply
yellowjacker
yellowjacker Jul. 4 at 11:52 PM
$ITRM The European voucher is a dead stick. I went to validate the 180 day window and it actually started in Oct of 2024 under Iterum. My bad. But it did recomfirm the debt standing along with Amb8675309 Claude data.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 8:20 PM
$ITRM THE RLN HOLDERS AND FUTURE REVENUE — WHY THEY HAVE NO CLAIM The single most important structural fact about the RLN holders is contained in two words from their indenture: “Limited Recourse.” This phrase has a specific legal meaning. The RLN holders’ right to payment is legally tied to actual revenue generated from sulopenem products during the period Iterum Therapeutics owned and commercialized the drug. It is not a general claim against the corporate estate. It is not a claim against whoever buys the asset in liquidation. It is not a claim against future revenues generated by a new owner after an APA closes. Read it again: “During the period ITRM OWNED AND COMMECIAKZED THE DRUG”. The agreement does not extend beyond the two parties… that’s the key- it doesn’t run with the IP- it’s between RLN holders and ITRM- it’s about revenue ITRM generates, it’s their sales activities➡️ITRM generated sales….. -
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:59 PM
$ITRM THE NPV CALCULATION Applying Shionogi’s cost of capital (roughly 10-12% for a strategic Japanese pharma acquirer) to a 15-year patent runway (sulopenem patents run to 2039-2041), with a 3-4 year ramp before reaching peak: Peak revenue of $57-96M annually, with a realistic ramp starting in year 4 post-approval (assuming 2-3 years to get the approval after acquisition, then 1 year to build hospital formulary penetration), discounted back at 11% over a 12-year peak period: NPV of cUTI step-down revenue stream to Shionogi: $180-310M Against a $25-30M investment to get the approval, this is an extraordinary return on investment: 6-10x ROI on the regulatory spend alone, before accounting for the strategic value of completing the cefiderocol-to-sulopenem IV-to-oral continuum as a branded, differentiated hospital anti-infective platform. Highly likely we have at least two bidders at this point. RLNs = $12.52M nothing 🍔May@yellowjacker’s $12.04 Valhalla number be with us all.:.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:56 PM
$ITRM for Shion specifically, the cUTI step-down pathway is not just a standalone commercial opportunity — it is DIRECT extension of an existing, established IV-to-oral treatment continuum they already own &are already commercializing. The Dr. who prescribes cefiderocol IV for a hospitalized resistant UTI patient is same doc who would prescribe oral sulopenem for the step-down & Shionogi’s hospital sales force ALREADY has that relationship.The health economics argument for hospital step-down is the CLEANEST commercial pitch in anti-infectives. From the GSK-funded study data, the relevant comparison is IV-complete (11 days, $53,359 average cost) versus IV-to-oral step-down (5.7 days, $27,905 average cost) — a saving of approximately $25,454 per patient for hospital & payer. For Shionogi’s commercial team, this translates directly: “Use cefiderocol IV to get the patient stable, step down to oral sulopenem &the hospital saves $25,000/patient vs completing the full IV course.”
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:49 PM
$ITRM from AI: THE cUTI MARKET OPPORTUNITY FOR SHIONOGI Complicated UTIs account for approximately 626,000 hospital admissions annually, with the specifically resistant-organism subset that would benefit from an oral step-down option (where no good oral alternative currently exists) estimated at roughly 94,000-157,000 cases annually — the population where tebipenem or sulopenem step-down is clinically meaningful rather than just convenient. But here is the critical difference between Shionogi owning the step-down indication versus GSK: Shionogi owns cefiderocol (Fetroja) — an IV carbapenem specifically indicated for resistant Gram-negative infections including those caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms. Cefiderocol is already on hospital formularies, already being prescribed by infectious disease specialists, and already covering the exact patient population that would step down to oral sulopenem.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:47 PM
$ITRM FUK! I’m calling it-yellowjacker is correct- it’ll be Shionogi(IMO) WHAT cUTI STEP-DOWN APPROVAL IS WORTH TO SHIONOGI THE INVESTMENT REQUIRED Based on everything established in this conversation — the existing 5,000 patient database, the 86.8% vs 66.4% IV-to-oral step-down rate already demonstrated in Phase 3, and the FDA meeting goal date already set for January 2026 — Shionogi would not be starting from zero. They would be running a focused bridging study designed to address the specific technical ASB endpoint issue that caused the original CRL, not a full new pivotal trial. Realistic cost to Shionogi of getting cUTI step-down approved: Trial design and FDA Type B/C meeting: $2-3M Focused bridging study (300-600 patients, shorter than original trial): $15-20M Data analysis, NDA supplement preparation: $3-5M FDA PDUFA user fees and regulatory costs: $2-3M Total investment: $22-31M
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:24 PM
$ITRM it’s my belief that the cUTI discussion that Fishman opened up is purely to indicate that a path to cUTI is still there and closer than most think. he did it because he obviously knows who the two low ball bidders were- And who would care about CUTI the most? Shionogi first, because that gets them competition to Tebi, and GSK second, because they don’t want competition to Tebi.
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:21 PM
$ITRM Reason 4 — Default Interest Is Real But Modest. The March 27, 2026 filing triggered an event of default causing interest to step up to approximately 11.5% annually. At $12.52M principal, 99 days of default interest adds approximately $400,000-$500,000. Total realistic RLN claim: $12.5-$13.0M This is Claude pulling filed docs- please check this but if accurate, looking very very good for us: The length of time so far supports thesis of at least two bidders.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:18 PM
$ITRM WHY THEY CANNOT DEMAND A LARGE LUMP SUM Reason 1 — Limited Recourse Structure. The “limited recourse” language means their payment right is specifically and legally tied to actual sulopenem U.S. net revenues — not to general corporate assets. Orlynvah generated approximately $390,000 in its entire commercial history before liquidation. 15% of $390,000 equals $58,500 in royalties actually earned under the literal terms of the instrument. Reason 2 — Subordinated Status. RLN holders are explicitly subordinated, unsecured creditors. In the liquidation waterfall they rank after Teneo fees, after Pfizer’s $21.215M senior debt, after preferential creditors, and after trade payables. They only receive what remains after all of the above are paid.Reason 3 — The 8x Cap Is a Ceiling, Not a Floor. The maximum possible RLN payout is capped at 8x the aggregate investment amount. This is a ceiling on what they can ever receive — not a guaranteed minimum payment in a liquidation
0 · Reply
Latest News on ITRM
No data available.
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 5 at 12:07 AM
$ITRM in other countries where Orly will be priced similar or slightly above generics, in the price isn’t that different, how much of ALL scripts Written will Orly capture in say, Japan? Big elderly population- so already a resistant population- will it only be 1% of TAM? Or much higher…😎
0 · Reply
yellowjacker
yellowjacker Jul. 4 at 11:52 PM
$ITRM The European voucher is a dead stick. I went to validate the 180 day window and it actually started in Oct of 2024 under Iterum. My bad. But it did recomfirm the debt standing along with Amb8675309 Claude data.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 8:20 PM
$ITRM THE RLN HOLDERS AND FUTURE REVENUE — WHY THEY HAVE NO CLAIM The single most important structural fact about the RLN holders is contained in two words from their indenture: “Limited Recourse.” This phrase has a specific legal meaning. The RLN holders’ right to payment is legally tied to actual revenue generated from sulopenem products during the period Iterum Therapeutics owned and commercialized the drug. It is not a general claim against the corporate estate. It is not a claim against whoever buys the asset in liquidation. It is not a claim against future revenues generated by a new owner after an APA closes. Read it again: “During the period ITRM OWNED AND COMMECIAKZED THE DRUG”. The agreement does not extend beyond the two parties… that’s the key- it doesn’t run with the IP- it’s between RLN holders and ITRM- it’s about revenue ITRM generates, it’s their sales activities➡️ITRM generated sales….. -
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:59 PM
$ITRM THE NPV CALCULATION Applying Shionogi’s cost of capital (roughly 10-12% for a strategic Japanese pharma acquirer) to a 15-year patent runway (sulopenem patents run to 2039-2041), with a 3-4 year ramp before reaching peak: Peak revenue of $57-96M annually, with a realistic ramp starting in year 4 post-approval (assuming 2-3 years to get the approval after acquisition, then 1 year to build hospital formulary penetration), discounted back at 11% over a 12-year peak period: NPV of cUTI step-down revenue stream to Shionogi: $180-310M Against a $25-30M investment to get the approval, this is an extraordinary return on investment: 6-10x ROI on the regulatory spend alone, before accounting for the strategic value of completing the cefiderocol-to-sulopenem IV-to-oral continuum as a branded, differentiated hospital anti-infective platform. Highly likely we have at least two bidders at this point. RLNs = $12.52M nothing 🍔May@yellowjacker’s $12.04 Valhalla number be with us all.:.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:56 PM
$ITRM for Shion specifically, the cUTI step-down pathway is not just a standalone commercial opportunity — it is DIRECT extension of an existing, established IV-to-oral treatment continuum they already own &are already commercializing. The Dr. who prescribes cefiderocol IV for a hospitalized resistant UTI patient is same doc who would prescribe oral sulopenem for the step-down & Shionogi’s hospital sales force ALREADY has that relationship.The health economics argument for hospital step-down is the CLEANEST commercial pitch in anti-infectives. From the GSK-funded study data, the relevant comparison is IV-complete (11 days, $53,359 average cost) versus IV-to-oral step-down (5.7 days, $27,905 average cost) — a saving of approximately $25,454 per patient for hospital & payer. For Shionogi’s commercial team, this translates directly: “Use cefiderocol IV to get the patient stable, step down to oral sulopenem &the hospital saves $25,000/patient vs completing the full IV course.”
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:49 PM
$ITRM from AI: THE cUTI MARKET OPPORTUNITY FOR SHIONOGI Complicated UTIs account for approximately 626,000 hospital admissions annually, with the specifically resistant-organism subset that would benefit from an oral step-down option (where no good oral alternative currently exists) estimated at roughly 94,000-157,000 cases annually — the population where tebipenem or sulopenem step-down is clinically meaningful rather than just convenient. But here is the critical difference between Shionogi owning the step-down indication versus GSK: Shionogi owns cefiderocol (Fetroja) — an IV carbapenem specifically indicated for resistant Gram-negative infections including those caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms. Cefiderocol is already on hospital formularies, already being prescribed by infectious disease specialists, and already covering the exact patient population that would step down to oral sulopenem.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:47 PM
$ITRM FUK! I’m calling it-yellowjacker is correct- it’ll be Shionogi(IMO) WHAT cUTI STEP-DOWN APPROVAL IS WORTH TO SHIONOGI THE INVESTMENT REQUIRED Based on everything established in this conversation — the existing 5,000 patient database, the 86.8% vs 66.4% IV-to-oral step-down rate already demonstrated in Phase 3, and the FDA meeting goal date already set for January 2026 — Shionogi would not be starting from zero. They would be running a focused bridging study designed to address the specific technical ASB endpoint issue that caused the original CRL, not a full new pivotal trial. Realistic cost to Shionogi of getting cUTI step-down approved: Trial design and FDA Type B/C meeting: $2-3M Focused bridging study (300-600 patients, shorter than original trial): $15-20M Data analysis, NDA supplement preparation: $3-5M FDA PDUFA user fees and regulatory costs: $2-3M Total investment: $22-31M
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:24 PM
$ITRM it’s my belief that the cUTI discussion that Fishman opened up is purely to indicate that a path to cUTI is still there and closer than most think. he did it because he obviously knows who the two low ball bidders were- And who would care about CUTI the most? Shionogi first, because that gets them competition to Tebi, and GSK second, because they don’t want competition to Tebi.
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:21 PM
$ITRM Reason 4 — Default Interest Is Real But Modest. The March 27, 2026 filing triggered an event of default causing interest to step up to approximately 11.5% annually. At $12.52M principal, 99 days of default interest adds approximately $400,000-$500,000. Total realistic RLN claim: $12.5-$13.0M This is Claude pulling filed docs- please check this but if accurate, looking very very good for us: The length of time so far supports thesis of at least two bidders.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:18 PM
$ITRM WHY THEY CANNOT DEMAND A LARGE LUMP SUM Reason 1 — Limited Recourse Structure. The “limited recourse” language means their payment right is specifically and legally tied to actual sulopenem U.S. net revenues — not to general corporate assets. Orlynvah generated approximately $390,000 in its entire commercial history before liquidation. 15% of $390,000 equals $58,500 in royalties actually earned under the literal terms of the instrument. Reason 2 — Subordinated Status. RLN holders are explicitly subordinated, unsecured creditors. In the liquidation waterfall they rank after Teneo fees, after Pfizer’s $21.215M senior debt, after preferential creditors, and after trade payables. They only receive what remains after all of the above are paid.Reason 3 — The 8x Cap Is a Ceiling, Not a Floor. The maximum possible RLN payout is capped at 8x the aggregate investment amount. This is a ceiling on what they can ever receive — not a guaranteed minimum payment in a liquidation
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:16 PM
$ITRM THE ACTUAL RLN BALANCE — CONFIRMED FROM Q3 2025 10-Q Current portion: $281,000 Long-term portion: $12,239,000 Total confirmed balance: $12,520,000 This is the actual audited GAAP-reported carrying value as of September 30, 2025. This is not an estimate. This is from the SEC filing.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:15 PM
$ITRM THE TWO ROYALTY RATES 15% of U.S. net revenues — triggered by uUTI approval. This is what actually happened. FDA approved uUTI on October 25, 2024. 20% of U.S. net revenues — would have triggered only if cUTI step-down was also approved. This never happened. Pfizer receives a separate 5% royalty under the original sulopenem licensing agreement. Combined royalty burden on every U.S. net revenue dollar: 15% (RLN) + 5% (Pfizer) = 20% total.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 7:08 PM
$ITRM I’m getting very excited/wen lambo even: The RLNs are NOT specifically tied to cUTI as some of us thought. Remember, they were to Get paid 15% if uUTI was approved, and 20% if cUTI got approved. The reason they cannot demand a lump sum is because their per script royalty is tied to revenue and the company has no revenue: (From Claude):THE RLN HOLDERS — WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY OWED Confirmed from SEC filings and primary source conversations WHAT ARE THE RLNs? The Royalty-Linked Subordinated Notes were issued in 2020 as part of Iterum’s private placement financing. They were specifically designed as a revenue-based royalty instrument — not traditional fixed-interest debt. The key legal phrase in the indenture is “Limited Recourse” — meaning RLN holder payments are limited to and linked specifically to actual revenue generated from sulopenem products, not a general claim against the corporate estate.
0 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 4 at 5:03 PM
$ITRM happy B day America! Hope those in the US have a fantastic day. Ran all the filings again- here’s the confirmed Debt Stack, as of June 29/26: Debt stack confirmed from actual SEC filings: Pfizer note: $21.215M RLN holders: $12.520M Accrued/other: $5.572M Teneo fees: $8-15M Post-filing accruals: $3-7M Total deductions: ~$55-65M Working midpoint: $60M Confirmed RLNs not tied to cUTI- they get 15% per script bec uUTI approved. They’re NOT entitled to a lump sum, so RLN balance is $12.52M. At that balance, & given the “limited recourse” structure (they ONLY get paid from revenues, & there are currently zero revenues), RLN holders in this liquidation are in a genuinely weak negotiating position. Their claim against the estate as unsecured subordinated creditors, behind Pfizer’s $21.2M senior debt &Teneo’s fees, is real but MODEST &Teneo has every incentive to negotiate them down to something at or below their $12.52M balance to preserve maximum equity.
1 · Reply
Steloco1
Steloco1 Jul. 3 at 10:35 PM
$ITRM congrats to all of us living in the USA as we reach 250 Years of freedom. Let's all celebrate our country s history , appreciate where we live, who we are and the opportunities that has afforded us to be where we are, achieved and enjoy! Happy 4th to all. 🇺🇲💥🍺🍸
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 3 at 9:10 PM
$ITRM RLNs would have received 20% per script if cUTI was approved. They get 15% per script with uUTIs. Also confirmed this with CF. A buyer now has the option, but not the obligation to pursue cUTI step down. So tough to make the argument of future value for a patient class not yet approved. Given how flaky FDA has been in recent years, just having cUTI door open does not equal certainty it’ll be approved. It’s if x if. Some buyers will value this more over others. Because CF knew who initial lowballers were, I’ll solve for the puzzle and say high likelihood it was at least one of the two- Shionogi or GSK- because for each of them it’s not just that cUTI is the bigger market- it’s because either one having cUTI affects their competition Against Each other…
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 3 at 8:44 PM
$ITRM so when I do use AI and not just simple back of the napkin, I think we can all easily justify anywhere between three and 800 million. I don’t think we should be arguing about that anymore. What does give me pause: I’ve pulled the original docs re RLNs-that’s the biggest thing we should be wondering: Can Teneo or even a buyer get them to agree to a lump sum? CF told me this: more than total script numbers, he needed to show sufficient NET revenue/aka meat on the 🍗. That’s a direct quote. unless you lump Sum PFE out of the picture/ditto the RLNs- how much net profit is left? I know people previously said because Bermuda wrote them. It’s easy to get RLNs to just take the face value +interest, but if you look carefully at the wording it’s not the case- the obligation to pay them circles back to the mothership..Everything is going to hinge on: Is this IP sold with the Pfizer “barnacle” and the RLN “leech”, per script?. Also, be on the lookout for undisclosed, “unpaid” creditor claims…
1 · Reply
Steloco1
Steloco1 Jul. 3 at 8:42 PM
$ITRM Teneo just has to make the case for the asset not the dumb company behind the asset. We all know the asset is solid. Convince them Teneo. Show some compassion and appreciation for the thousands of investors who paid for this asset..
1 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 3 at 8:37 PM
$ITRM just focused on here and now: dollar has done great work-others too- just reminding you- in biotech, these guys want a screaming deal.. they used CF’s cash runway and an unproven GTM- capturing 1% of 26 million resistant scripts requires Orly being used at first office visit/ CF confirmed that multiple times. Otherwise, 83.3% of patients better by second generic. Medically this is a bad idea for women to keep getting UTIs multiple times a year.. you’re just trading super bugs plus constant antibiotic use is not good for her gut micro biome. On the other side, you have insurance companies and they don’t give a flying F if two or even three generics does the job the patient got micro biome is acceptable collateral damage. They just care about treating the patient as cheaply as possible like Corey Fishman said we are never gonna get rid of generics. It is the insurance companies that want them there.
1 · Reply
Steloco1
Steloco1 Jul. 3 at 7:38 PM
$ITRM yes your past paragraph is correct. Shareholders would be pissed off even more had we known real numbers because he knew he fucked up waiting 10 months to start selling. If he would have been a good Stewart/CEO launched right after approval, got sales going, reported progress to his shareholders regularly, we most likely would have supported him. But####. So he knew he had a valuable asset he couldn't afford to promote so this was his hand-off plan. So give BP a deal. Pay 2-300mil instead of 5-800mil and lets end this bad movie and move on.
0 · Reply
DollerADay
DollerADay Jul. 3 at 6:19 PM
$ITRM Had we voted yes on the last EGM proposal in February we would have seen 93.4% dilution before any new short attacks (a given based on lack of institutional holding support). Additionally, there would be up to 50M new shares on top of our base moving from 52.4M O/S to 3.2M. Fish weaponized the disgruntled retail shareholder base to use as another legal shield to force the pre-planned liquidation. Remember, Durrata was bought 4 months after FDA approval of Dalvance with minimal sales. This was the only path for a large buyout and return, especially for those who bought in the high $1’s. There simply aren’t deals for a no-strings, clean and de-risked, new and novel asset like this under any circumstances for low dollars. I don’t care at all about early scripts with the skeleton crew given the timeline until today. Plan B of their explicit dual path was executed flawlessly. My only regret after taking a few G Wagons in realized losses, is not loading the boat at $.01.
3 · Reply
Amb8675309
Amb8675309 Jul. 3 at 4:27 PM
$ITRM lastly: we just have to wait at this point/ we have sent proof of our collective share holdings over 10% of outstanding shares. Teneo knows we are an active shareholder base who will be scrutinizing all numbers. Each of you is entitled to either: hold, sell, contact Teneo, etc. but this is biotech. We have lost meaningful sums on other companies we invested in… biotech is the riskiest sector out there… I believe the BD guys representing any interested parties will be able to analyze data room numbers plus market potentiality of Orly in the US/internationally and make a decision. Teneo’s results with the Metsera deal, while headline grabbing, may not mean much in this case. Teneo definitely saw a reason to take ITRM as a client, but these negotiations can yield curve balls. It would be reductionist of us to assume any huge mind blowing offer- It is a strong drug with a place in a HCP’s antibiotic arsenal. We just have to let it unfold.. have a great weekend… *AI free post*
2 · Reply